Muni Akkayyumma & Another v. State Of Karnataka & Others

1. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of quashing the impugned order of respondent-2 dated 14-10-1987 ordering eviction of the petitioners.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are that on 18-11-1970 the lands in question were alienated by the original holder of lands, the lands being attached to Thoti Service Inam of Beerasandra Village, Devanahally Taluk.

3. The husband of the 1st petitioner who was also the father of the 2nd petitioner was the purchaser. On an application made by the original holder of lands, an order of regrant was passed on 12-11-1970 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The sale of the lands is subsequent to the regrant. But the salient feature in the regrant order is that permission was granted to alienate the lands in the regrant order itself and this enabled and empowered the original holder of lands to execute sale deed in favour of the purchaser. Though the principle that is laid down in the case of Lakshmana Gowda v. State, 1981 (1) Kar. LJ. Page-1, is that the benefit of regrant flows to the alienee if the alienation has taken place after 1963 and before the order of regrant, in the instant case the provisions of law under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act come to the aid of the petitioners.

4. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act reads thus:

“The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, regranted under sub-section (1) shall not be transferable otherwise than by partition among members of Hindu Joint Family without the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and such sanction shall be granted only on payment of an amount, equal to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land.”

5. At this stage, it was submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that one of the principles enunciated in Lakshmana Gowda's case lends support to the contention of the petitioners. Since the statute itself justifies the sale made in favour of the alienees by the original holders of lands who had the necessary sanction of the competent authority before alienation of the lands, it may not be necessary to advert to the observations made in Lakshmana Gowda's case.

6. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act are self-explanatory. Except in case of partition among members of Hindu Joint Family and subsequent transfer within the family, the statute contemplates that, without the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, alienation cannot be made of regranted land and it also provides that such a sanction can be given by the competent authority only on payment of an amount equal to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land.

7. In the case on hand, the condition is fulfilled inasmuch as permission to alienate is self-contained in the order of regrant passed on 12-11-1970. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the petitioners are not liable to be evicted.

8. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. In view of the principle laid down in Lakshmana Gowda's case that where the alienee is entitled to regularisation of the sale transaction, he is liable to pay fifteen times the full assessment of the land concerned for the purpose of necessary entries to be made in the khatha in favour of the alienees, it is hereby ordered that the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the alienee could avail themselves of the opportunity of having the necessary entries made in the khatha on payment of fifteen times the full assessment of the lands measuring 4 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 6 and 22 guntas in Sy. No. 70 of Beerasandra Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahally Taluk.

9. The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo or appearance within two weeks from today.

10. Writ Petition allowed